Notices


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


United States Third Presidential Debate

 
yes and no- if you are afraid that you are going to lose your job for filing a lawsuit then the company shouldn't be able to simply pay you a fair wage for 180 days then fire you to get away with it. On the other hand if they have been paying a fair wage for 5 years or more then you probably shouldn't be able to sue for discrimination that far back. So it's at least a place to start the discussion. Maybe each week of employment at fair pay should reduce the remaining time frame by 1 day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ben View Post
If you want serious answers ask serious questions. Phrasing it like "you have nothing to offer except stopping progress and racial segregation" is a great way to get ignored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
The Republican party is painting 47% of americans as the "evil villain" class.
Gotcha, you prefer to be ignored. Wish granted.

Ah, so you are saying you support the Republican party because you have had your head stuck in the sand for the past 20 years.
or do you perhaps want to participate in a conversation where you start treating other perspectives as something other than an annoyance to be at best tollerated. Because in fact that is precisely what the Republican party has done- I recieved the otehr day in my inbox one of the RP's little fairy tales "reworking" chicken little to paint everyone recieving government assistance as the lazy barn animals who want to eat the bread without having helped make it- except with the farmer redistributing it to reward laziness. I've grown up with the distoritionist propaganda, and I see it for the inaccurate demonization of the disadvantaged that it is. So what aside from taking your ball and going home do you have to offer to the conversation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ben quoting Romney
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement.
I have many problems with Romney, but this encapsulates it perfectly for me.

The sheer disconnect between his position and mine -- that I believe citizens of the US should be entitled to health care, food, and housing as basic necessities of life, and that the goverment should assist them when they are unable to secure those things themselves -- makes it impossible for me to understand the man's point of view. That he expresses that divide in opinion with such disrespect for those holding the opposing viewpoint to his, this 47% that he can't possibly reach, signals to me that he should never be a leader of our nation.

He can disagree with half the nation (his distinction). He can think they are mistaken, that they are in the wrong, that their values should not be the dominant ones in America or in American politics. But these people are American citizens regardless of their views, and Romney's tone and expression makes it clear that he reviles them and has no degree of respect for them whatsoever.

This man should not hold public office. It's as simple as that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ben View Post
Gotcha, you prefer to be ignored. Wish granted.
What amazes me is that you continue to try.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
Ah, so you are saying you support the Republican party because you have had your head stuck in the sand for the past 20 years.
Given his repeated refusal to account for, or refute basic facts that directly debunk his positions and the validity of his dogma (or moving the goalposts to ridiculous extents, like claiming inequality adjusted HDI is irrelevant/completely secondary vs 'economic mobility'), while categorically ignoring anyone who presents them, that's probably accurate. The only reason I don't ignore him myself is so I can challenge and discredit his often grossly distorted or even outright false assertions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
What amazes me is that you continue to try.
As the election season wears on my ignore list grows bigger by the week... There are too many people to discuss things with so I try to keep it to those who I enjoy talking to and ignore the rest.

Atlictoatl, his proposed policies and record in office don't hold to that caricature invented after an offhand comment. It's one thing to disagree on the best way to help the poor but it's another entirely to simply assume that people who don't feel as you do are uncaring.

I wouldn't say uncaring, but counter to Atlictoatl's stances. Which definitely justifies Romney losing his vote.

It is similar for me. My voting priority is 100% social. I think both parties would love to drive our economy into the ground, and I think both parties are in the pocket of huge companies. So to me the main difference is that one realizes we still have social woes (abortion, gay marriage, racism, poverty), and the other seems to think this is not important for his office to cover (whether he realizes these things exist or not).

Even when Romney has a clear plan on a social problem that hasn't been morphed by his party leaning further right, he would still rather minimize federal influence on that problem. So that is where we disagree, and that is why he never had a chance at my vote. I don't care about his gaffes, his personality, his appearance, his faith, all of that is just background noise to weak social policy.

Yeah, if you're going with 100% social Obama is probably the right pick for you though I'd dispute the GOP is leaning further right. GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans are two great examples. Heck, some guy at CPAC 2010 gave a speech denouncing the invitation of GOProud and in 2011 GOProud was there and the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America weren't. It wasn't until 6 months ago or so that the Democrats and Obama supported gay marriage as a national platform. The Republicans, much like the Democrats and the rest of America with them, are changing.

Background in case you're interested: http://www.mediaite.com/online/socia...throwdj-party/

Quote:
After tensions came to a boiling point last year when a speaker was booed off stage for preaching against gays in his speech, several conservative groups are planning to boycott this years Conservative Political Action Committee over the inclusion of gay conservative groups at the conference, including the Family Research Council and the Heritage Foundation. But not all conservatives are upset with the move– Andrew Breitbart, for one, is throwing a party.

The Family Research Council, Heritage Foundation, and American Family Association have canceled their tickets to CPAC– by far one of the largest conventions of its sort in the nation– this year, the LA Times reports, over the increased inclusion of gay conservative groups like GOProud and other socially liberal and libertarian organizations. CPAC also refused to sponsor a panel on the virtues of male-female marriage, much to these groups’ chagrin. According to the Times, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins explained to supporters in an email about their withdrawal from the event that “conservatives and homosexuals cannot coexist in a movement predicated on social values,” and as such their group no longer had a place in CPAC. Meanwhile, Heritage Foundation vice president for communications Mike Gonzales told the newspaper that, when it comes to conservative values, “you can’t pick one and not the other,” referring to economic and social values.

The offending groups, meanwhile, seem to be taking it in stride, particularly GOProud, the gay conservative group which has been invited to CPAC twice in its two-year existence and reports to have grown since then to a whopping 10,000 members. CPAC organizers, meanwhile, responded that, while lamentable, they were not willing to exclude gay conservative groups to appease the socially conservative factions offended, and the conference is expected to attract a good 10,000 attendees anyway, among them CPAC 2010 MVP Andrew Breitbart, who seems to be planning to enter this year’s event with a more peaceful disposition:
Here in Wisconsin a gay campaign worker for the Republican was recently beaten up for betraying "his side" or however they worded it. Intolerance is everywhere, nobody corners that market.





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status       Advertise with us